could be interesting for science buffs......
Preview "Climate of Doubt" - PBS 10/23
M.B.: Not really. Media should be reporting on climate change, not on the controversy. The made up controversy by the deniers is OLD NEWS!
S.B.: good point. But the controversy persists, as a public policy hurdle if not a scientific issue. I trust Frontline to realize that "fair and balanced" doesn't mean presenting two sides of the controversy as equally plausible, when in reality they are not.
Me: Skeptics are a desirable voice and ought to be celebrated as a needed check on the power and money hungry scientodists. Science has a deservedly bad rep because of people like these.
M.B.: "Money hungry scientists"??? Haahahahaha!
Me: Um, money-hungy scientodists. Sucking at the teat of government, and expecting quid pro quo.
M.B.: Quid pro quo? Expecting government to suck back on their teats? Hmm, interesting idea. I mean, government funded scientists do in fact give back to the public, but it's not necessarily government that is sucking on their teats. It's progress and industry and business and education.
Me: In an ideal world, sure. But scientists are human, so they are in turn weak, insightful, foolish, and brilliant. The quid pro quo I refer to is influence and agenda implementation. The problem is not science, it is that too many scientists expect their prescriptions to be installed in government. Scientists by and large make spectacularly bad politicians. That may be a complement.
No comments:
Post a Comment